fostering powerful use of technology through instructional … · 2018-08-09 · teachers are using...

Fostering Powerful Use of Technology Through Instructional Coaching Results from the Pilot Year of the Dynamic Learning Project

Authored by Mahsa Bakhshaei Angela Hardy Aubrey Francisco Sierra Noakes and Judi Fusco

Fostering Powerful Use of Technology Through Instructional Coaching | 2

CONTENTS

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 7

About the Dynamic Learning Project 11

Findings 15

Conclusions 26

Acknowledgements 28

References 30


Executive Summary


Research findings suggest that instructional technology coaching may be a critical lever in closing the gap in the usage of technology sometimes referred to as the digital use divide (Ehsanipour amp Zaccarelli 2017) The theory of change behind the DLP is that instructional coaching will drive increased student and teacher success through more effective use of technology

Working with 50 schools having an average of 66 percent of students who qualify for freereduced price lunch in 20 school districts across five statesmdashAlabama California Pennsylvania South Carolina and Texasmdashwe provided each school with a grant to support an onsite full-time instructional tech-nology coach (called a DLP coach) for one year

DLP coaches provided individualized support to teachers over the course of four eight-week coaching cycles During each cycle coaches worked with each teacher to help them select tackle and then reflect upon a classroom challenge(s) The school-based coaches as well as the principals received sustained mentoring and ongoing Professional Development (PD) throughout the year including participation in live events such as a Summer Institute

and a regionally-based Winter Institute Furthermore they became members of the DLP Professional Learning Network (PLN) Over the course of the year mentors served as accessible experts who could provide an

outside perspective and personalized support to coaches as well as to the principal at each school School district staff also played key roles in the ongoing implementation of the pilot year

If there is one takeaway from the pilot year of the

DLP it is that district leaders teachers principals and coaches believe that instructional technology coaching provides an engaging and impactful PD

experience that helps close the digital use divide and

can ultimately increase student achievement

Our data shows that after one year of working with their DLP coach teachers are using technology more frequently and in more powerful ways DLP teachers report significant increases in using technology for both teaching content and pedagogymdashin other words teachers are using technology to support what they are teaching as well as how they are teaching it At the

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Dynamic Learning Project (DLP) seeks to improve educational equity and enhance student learning by supporting teachers with classroom coaching to better leverage technology in powerful and meaningful ways While it seems like technology should be a tool for leveling the playing field at schools of differing socioeconomic and demographic populations some schools and teachers require more support to conquer the learning curve associated with how best to leverage technology for learning


end of the year more than 80 percent of DLP teachers agreed that they have the ability to use technology in powerful ways when it comes to student collaboration creativity communication critical thinking agency and that students are better at selecting appropriate technology tools

By the end of the pilot year coaches reported feeling significantly more confident in their own coaching skills and ability attributing their growth to the ongoing mentorship and peer learning fostered by the DLP Similarly almost all principals reported high or extremely high levels of confidence in their leadership skills related to instructional coaching Principals described the DLP as encouraging them to model risk-taking experimenta-tion and continuous learning

Importantly this pilot year research helped us to further define the conditions necessary for a successful instructional technology coaching intervention We identified six core attributes of a strong coaching model and five key qualities of a successful coach The six core attributes are partnerships personalization voluntary nature situated in schoolclassroom non-evaluative and sustained The five key qualities are relationship builder insider strong communicator tech believer and experienced teacher

We know where we want to gomdashwe envision a world in which all teachers and students have equitable access to technology and all teachers and students equally benefit from all that technology has to offer In this new world taking the time to coach teachers in using technology is a crucial step for schools in moving to the next level The DLPrsquos pilot year results offer guidance for creating that equitable opportunity-filled world


Introduction


ldquoIn my years at [my school] Irsquove never seen any lsquoinitiativersquo or lsquoprojectrsquo so wholly embraced by such a large (and diverse) group of the faculty () there is still so much to learn so much information to gain with another year in the coaching positionrdquo

INTRODUCTION

After the first year of the Dynamic Learning Project (DLP) principals teachers coaches and students are more engaged more collaborative and well on their way to experiencing a fundamental culture shift in their schools Early research findings suggest the DLP is changing school culture through instructional coaching revealing a critical lever in closing digital divides

ldquoI saw seventh graders turn into lifelong learnersrdquo

ldquo[My teaching] is more differentiated

than it ever has beenrdquo

In the past 10 years the first digital divide across U S

public schools has narrowed significantlymdashmore than

90 percent of schools now have access to the internet

(Education Superhighway 2018) At the same time a

new divide emergedmdashthe digital use dividemdashwhich

is fueled by major differences in how teachers and

students use technology

The aim of the Dynamic Learning Project is to increase

educational equity and improve outcomes through an

instructional coaching program designed to support

teachers in using technology in powerful and impact-

ful ways To accomplish this we need to recognize

two important facts

1 Many teachers do not have the training expe-

rience and resources to use technology in the

most effective and innovative ways to advance

student achievement especially in low-income

and underserved schools

2 Almost half of U S teachers desire more training

than they currently receive in using technology

effectively (U S Department of Education 2017)

Technology can be a transformational tool for teach-

ers toward improving student learning increasing

student engagement and driving school innovation

While it seems like technology should be a tool

for leveling the playing field at schools of differing

socioeconomic and demographic populations

some schools and teachers require more support to

conquer the learning curve associated with how best

to leverage technology for learning As one group

of leading researchers and educators said ldquoschools

serving privileged students tend to use the same

technologies in more progressive ways than schools

serving less privileged studentsrdquo (Reich amp Ito 2017)

Itrsquos not enough to ensure that a school has access

to the internet or devices To achieve equity some

schools will require more support to conquer a

learning curve associated with how to use technology

to improve student outcomes

What are the goals behind the Dynamic Learning Project

The Dynamic Learning Project (DLP) seeks to improve

educational equity and student learning by supporting


teachers with classroom coaching to

better leverage technology in powerful

and meaningful ways

We know where we want to gomdashwe

envision a world in which all teachers

and students have equitable access to

technology and equally benefit from all

that technology has to offer But how do

we get there

Within schools teachers are the

greatest asset to student achievement

(Darling-Hammond 2000 Harris amp Sass

2011) To enrich student learning we

must empower teachers At the same

time technology can provide teachers

with powerful ways to support student

learning and provide meaningful and

diverse learning experiences (Darling-

Hammond Zielezinski amp Goldman

2014)

We also know from the research that

instructional coaching is a critical

evidence-based tool to support teacher

growth (Kraft Blazer amp Hogan 2018)

A number of studies have found large

positive effects of coaching on teachersrsquo

instructional practice and student

achievement However few studies ex-

amine factors and dynamics that define

the effect of instructional coaching on

teachersrsquo ability to use technology in

ways that support student engagement

and learning in K-12 settings So we

invested in instructional technology

coaches by providing them with

training and support including mentors

to connect with throughout the year

Digital Promise is conducting research

to understand how this program impacts

teacher confidence in using technology

for teaching and learning and more

What do we hope to learn from the DLP

From a research perspective we asked

ldquoWhat are the conditions necessary for

instructional coaching to effectively

foster powerful use of technology for

learningrdquo In other words how do we

set up coaching to help teachers use

technology more powerfully

Our theory of change is that instruc-

tional technology coaching is an

effective PD model for driving increased

student and teacher success through

increased impactful use of technology in

the classroom

Itrsquos important to be clear that tech-

nology alone is not the end game

Technology in the hands of skilled

teachers and engaged students in full

support of powerful learning is what

matters

Effective PD addresses five key areas

ndash content focus active learning sustained duration collective partic-ipation and coherence (Desimone amp

Pak 2017)

CONTENT FOCUS Activities that

support teacher learning in teaching

specific content areas

ACTIVE LEARNING Opportunities that

directly engage teachers in designing

andor trying teaching strategies

SUSTAINED DURATION Opportunities

that provide teachers with sufficient

time to learn practice implement and

reflect on strategies that improve their

practice

COLLECTIVE PARTICIPATION Opportunities where teachers can share

ideas and actively become the advocates

of their own learning

COHERENCE Activities that are consis-

tent with the schooldistrict goals and

curriculum and teacherstudent needs

CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION

COLLECTIVE PARTICIPATION

COHERENCE

5Key Areas

of ProfessionalDevelopment


Instructional coaching touches all five areas and

many research efforts have shown that coaching

improves the quality of instruction and increases

engagement with fellow teachers (Charner amp Medrich

2017) However the number of coaching hours

needed is not fully defined Research suggests that a

range of 14-50 hours per year is needed for PD to be

effective (Wei Darling-Hammond amp Adamson 2010

Yoon Duncan Lee Scarloss amp Shapley 2007)

What is powerful use of technology

Drawing on the Framework of 21st Century for

Teaching and Learning (Ravitz 2014) we define

ldquopowerful use of technologyrdquo as when educators have

the ability to engage their students in using technol-

ogy to

bull SELECT RELEVANT TECHNOLOGY TOOLS

Students can select relevant technology tools and

resources for learning

bull DEVELOP COLLABORATION SKILLS Students

can work together to solve problems complete

tasks and accomplish common goals

bull DEVELOP COMMUNICATION SKILLS Students

can thoughtfully cross borders connect with

experts locally and globally and share what they

have learned orally in writing and through a

variety of media

bull DEVELOP CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION SKILLS Students can generate and refine solu-

tions to complex problems or tasks using ideation

synthesis and analysis processes in combination

with technology

bull DEVELOP CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS Students

can ask and investigate complex problems eval-

uate different sources of information and draw

conclusions based on evidence and reasoning

bull DEVELOP AGENCY Students can take respon-

sibility for their learning by setting and driving

towards personal goals by identifying their own

topics processes and strategies and by reviewing

and reflecting on their work


About the Dynamic Learning Project


Figure 1 Percentage of DLP teachers who reported working with their coach on each of the focus challenge categories over the course of the year

Student Engagement

Instructional Strategies

Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

ABOUT THE DYNAMIC LEARNING PROJECT

What is the Dynamic Learning Project coaching model

Working with 50 underserved schools in 20 school

districts across five regionsmdashAlabama California

Pennsylvania South Carolina and Texasmdashwe

provided grants to support one site-based full-time

instructional technology coach for each school for

one year The DLP program team provided a profile of

suggested qualifications for DLP coaches to districts

which district leaders and principals could use as a

guideline in their hiring processes All coaches had

prior teaching experience and most had taught

within the school where they were hired In selecting

coaches principals tended to prioritize a strong

history of innovative teaching practices and existing

relationships with school staff over technological

knowledge

DLP coaches provided individualized support to

teachers over the course of four eight-week coaching

cycles During each cycle coaches worked with

teachers individually to help them select tackle

and then reflect upon a classroom challenge(s)

The majority of teachers participated in one cycle

coaches worked with approximately the same number

of teachers during each of the four cycles allowing

more than 1110 teachers (out of a teacher population

of 2250) to participate in the DLP in the pilot year

During each cycle each teacher collaborated with

the coach to identify one or more challenges to

focus on and for each brainstormed and selected an

innovative technology-based strategy for tackling

the challenge(s) Teachers selected focus challenges

from the following categories (in order of popularity)

student engagement instructional strategies tech-

nology skills differentiation planningpreparation

assessment professional growth and classroom

management (Figure 1)

The coach then provided classroom support to the

teacher throughout the implementation process in

the form of modeling co-teaching and observations

Finally the coach and teacher reflected on the experi-

ence and discussed next steps If the teacher felt that

enough progress had been made on the initial focus

challenge additional challenges could be tackled

within one eight-week cycle

How are the coaches and principals supported

Participating schools received sustained mentoring

and ongoing PD including through participation in


both DLP-wide and regional PLN Coach and principal

engagement began with a five-day Summer Institute

where they met the mentor assigned to support

their geographic region Over the course of the year

mentors served the role of accessible experts who

could provide an outside perspective and personal-

ized support to coaches and principals After an initial

school visit in the fall mentors held virtual biweekly

meetings with coaches and monthly meetings with

principals Participants reconvened at a regional-

ly-based Winter Institute

What resources were provided to coaches

During the first eight weeks of the school year

coaches participated in a book study followed by

one or two live online training sessions per month

delivered by mentors They were provided with a list

of challenges that teachers might encounter and

associated strategies and tools Coaches were pro-

vided with digital resources to maintain coaching logs

of their classroom visits meetings and the progress of

coached teachers Technology skill and instructional

coaching tips were provided throughout the year to

coaches in weekly newsletters1

What is the principalrsquos role in the DLP

After classroom teachers the principal as school

leader has the largest impact on student learning

(Leithwood Seashore Wahlstrom amp Anderson

2010 Matsumura Sartoris Bickel amp Garnier 2009)

Principals must fully buy in for any intervention to

succeed and the DLP is no different The principalrsquos

role was to support coaching in their building by

maintaining program fidelity reassuring teachers con-

cerning the confidentiality and collaborative nature

of the coach-teacher relationship ensuring that the

coach did not play an evaluative role and protecting

the time of the coach from other assignments

Moreover principals have the ability to make import-

ant changes to how the school functions what the

schoolrsquos goals are and how the principal and school

staff communicate in response to coach feedback

What is the school districtrsquos role in the DLP

Each participating district identified one or more

leaders to support coaching in participating schools

by removing barriers to success enacting plans for

sustainability and articulating the project to district

stakeholders and the greater community More than

82 percent of district leads reported that the DLP is

aligned or strongly aligned with district goals for PD

andor technology integration

How was data gathered

An important part of this project was to design and

implement a research project to learn more about

the model and also provide data back to the schools

to support continuous improvement To answer

the research questions we collected and analyzed

both qualitative and quantitative data Quantitative

data was gathered from all 50 schools including

surveys of participating teachers coaches principals

and district leaders Qualitative data was primarily

gathered from four volunteer case study schools All

case study schools serve predominantly low-income

students and each of the four is located in a different

geographic region Using this mixed methods design

resulted in a more complete understanding of the

program and its impact

Teachers coaches and principals completed two

surveysmdashone at the beginning of the year and one at

the end of the year Nearly all coaches (94 percent)

and principals (90 percent) completed both surveys2

We surveyed teachers who did and did not participate

in the program The surveys for participating teachers

of district leads reported the DLP is aligned or strongly aligned with district goals for PD andor technology integration

82+

1See appendix 2 for a detailed list of coach resources 2See appendix 1 for detailed sample sizes


asked them to agree or disagree with statements on

teacher use of technology principal-coach-teacher

partnership coach-teacher collaboration and

student engagement and learning The surveys for

the non-participating teachers mainly inquired about

their use of technology and student engagement

and learning Finally we surveyed district leads

from the 20 districts to understand the alignment of

the DLP with their district goals and the possibility

of sustainability and scalability of the DLP in each

district Eighteen (90 percent) of the district leaders

responded to the survey

For each of the case study schools we made three

visits (at the beginning in the middle and at the end

of the pilot year) to interview principals coaches and

between three and seven participating teachers We

also visited the classroom of each teacher who was

interviewed to observe them teaching on their own (in

the first and third visits) and while working with their

coach (in the second visit)

Student perspective is also important in evaluating

the impact of the DLP We collected survey data from

students of case study teachers following our first

and third visits The surveys asked students to agree

or disagree with statements about their use of tech-

nology and level of engagement in the classrooms of

their DLP teachers A total of 798 students across the

four case study schools completed both surveys

Suburban middle school in Pennsylvania

Students

low-income100

White83

Black8

Communityof adults over 25

high schooldiploma or less50

medianearnings$25000yr

Case Study 1

Suburban middle school in Texas

Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2

Rural middle school in Alabama

Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3

Suburban middle school in California

Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS

Letrsquos go back to our theory of change

behind this projectmdashthat instruc-

tional coaching will drive increased


increased effective use of technol-

ogy In this pilot year we measured

student and teacher success on

a variety of measures and found

important improvements

Teaching more powerfully

Teachers described being ldquore-cen-

teredrdquo and ldquorefocusedrdquo as a result of

the coaching they received through

the DLP As one teacher explained

ldquoAfter close to 20 years of teaching

( ) having a coach and having the

ability to do these different types of

activities has re-energized my love

for it rdquo At the end of the year teach-

ers who reported having received

more support from their coach also

reported greater job satisfaction

Our data shows that after one year

of working with their DLP coach

teachers are using technology more

frequently and in more powerful

ways At the end of the year 86 percent of the DLP

teachers stated that their technology use was more

frequent this year than previous years This was the

case for 76 percent of teachers

who didnrsquot participate in the DLP

suggesting that there are benefits

even for non-coached teachers

perhaps as a result of culture shifts

access to the coach increased peer

collaboration and principal support

While using technology more

frequently is a foundational piece of

using technology more powerfully

the ways that teachers are using

technologymdashthe how in addition

to the how oftenmdashis even more

important At the end of the year

60 percent of the DLP teachers

reported that they had made

considerable progress in how they

use technology in their teaching

practice compared with 46 percent

of their colleagues who didnrsquot

participate in the DLP

More than 80 percent of DLP teach-

ers agreed that they have the ability

to use technology in powerful ways

when it comes to student selection

of technological tools collaboration

creativity communication critical

thinking and agency (Figure 2) Half

of the teachers involved in the case studies specifically

noted that coaching helped them increase their ability

to differentiate instruction Some teachers explained

76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759

Selection relevanttech tools

Collaboration Creativity Critical Thinking Communications Agency

DLP Teacher Powerful Use of Technology

Teachers That Stated Their Technology Use Was More Frequent This Year Than

The Previous Year

Teachers That Reported They Made Considerable

Progress In How They Use Technology

Figure 2 Percentage of teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that they had the ability to actively engage their students in using technology in powerful ways


that often in their classrooms differentiation would

take the form of small rotating groups A veteran

teacher with more than 20 years of teaching experi-

ence elaborated ldquoI rarely do any kind of whole group

instruction anymore [ ] the way I deliver things now is

in different chunks and itrsquos more geared toward herersquos

the specific things for this group Itrsquos more differenti-

ated than it ever has been Thatrsquos definitely different

lesson planning than Irsquove done before rdquo

The teachers who were coached (DLP teachers)

reported significant increases in using technology for

both teaching content and pedagogymdashin other words

teachers are using technology both to support what

they are teaching and how they are teaching it (Figure

3) What is especially interesting is that there was

not a significant difference in how DLP and non-DLP

teachers perceive their basic technology skills But

there is a statistically significant difference in how DLP

teachers believe they now use technology for both

content and pedagogy which is important from the

perspective of how to improve teaching

Student engagement grew as powerful technology use increased

Students reported using technology more often for

working with their peers solving complex problems

developing communication skills and keeping track

of their own work In other words powerful use of

technology by students increased after one year of

coaching for educators As one teacher explained

ldquo[The students] have ownership of what theyrsquore doing

and what theyrsquore learning instead of me just handing

them things like lsquoOkay Do this rsquo Theyrsquove created

things themselves that they can share with each

other and (hellip) [the students] have gotten better about

finding specific things to provide feedback on instead

of just saying lsquoThis is awesome rsquordquo

Importantly coaches principals and teachers

reported that coaching led to this increased student

engagement in learning even when itrsquos not the main

challenge they focus on Principals teachers and

coaches all increasingly believed that DLP coaching

improves student learning and engagement coaches

were the most positive about the potential of the DLP

with more than 95 percent of coaches believing that

the DLP advances student learning and engagement

(Figures 4 and 5)

In response to a question asking what the most

surprising impact of the DLP had been a teacher

responded that due to increased differentiation shersquod

made working with her DLP coach ldquoTherersquos not

one kid off task Itrsquos surprising to me that theyrsquove all

bought in Thatrsquos so cool [Before] yoursquod always have

four or five kids who are just reluctant or not moti-

vated But the ones that were the least motivated at

the beginning of the year are now doing things doing

it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers

Use of technologyto teach content area

Use of technology toimprove pedagogy

493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers

Figure 3 Percentage of DLP versus non-DLP teachers who reported considerable or extreme progress (as opposed to no slight or moderate progress) in the development of their technology skills and selection and use of technology to teach specific content and to improve teaching approaches (pedagogy)

Teacher Progress in Technology Skills and Use


Student Learning Student Engagement

At the beginning of the year

At the end of the year

898

818918

821

Figure 5 Percentage of DLP teachers who agreed or strongly agreed that providing educator support through instructional coaching improves student learning and engagement

DLP Teacher Belief that Coaching Can Improve Student Learning and Engagement

Figure 4 Percentage of coaches and principals who agreed or strongly agreed that instructional coaching can improve student learning and engagement

Coaches Principals

At the beginning of the year At the end of the year

851 778

957 872

Coach and Principal Belief that Coaching Can Improve Student Learning and Engagement


Coaches and principals grew in coaching and leadership skills

The DLP was not designed to be only about teachers

It is a systemic approach that carefully considers the

role of coaches mentors and principals in supporting

teachers and in shifting school culture

At the end of the pilot year coaches were significantly

more confident in their own coaching skills and

ability 89 percent of coaches rated their general

coaching skills as high or extremely high compared

with just 62 percent at the beginning of the year

(Figure 6) Coaches attributed their growth to the

opportunities for connection collaboration and

peer learning fostered by the in-person Summer and

Winter Institutes their mentor support and their

regional PLNs Coaches also mentioned autonomy

as a key to success As one coach shared ldquoWithout

autonomy and authority an instructional coach

cannot do their job well I was given autonomy to get

my job done(hellip)[and] I was also given the authority to

make decisions in the best interest of the school and

students rdquo Increased autonomy is also a reflection of

principalsrsquo successfully navigating and supporting the

coach as a leader in the school building

Nearly all coaches and principals agreed that the

mentorrsquos role was essential for implementing the

program Coaches described their mentors as

ldquoindispensablerdquo and ldquoan absolute mustrdquo especially

in the beginning of the year as they were getting

the program off the ground and highlighted the

mentorsrsquo role in establishing regional PLNs The PLNs

themselves were also instrumental for coaches As

one coach explained ldquoWe meet all the time we talk all

the time If therersquos a training we all sign up to go We

try to do as much together as we can We visit each

otherrsquos schools ( )we talk to each other daily ( )That

to me has been almost even more beneficial than

anything rdquo

Some of the largest meaningful gains were found in

principal skills In the fall only 60 percent of principals

reported high or extremely high levels of confidence

in their leadership skills related to instructional

coaching By the end of the pilot year 95 percent

of principals reported high or extremely high levels

of confidence in their leadership skills related to

instructional coaching (Figure 7) In discussing their

growth principals shared that they especially valued

the face-to-face training at Summer Institute and

Winter Institute and the opportunity to learn from

one another Moreover the percent of principals

who strongly agreed with the power of instructional

coaching to improve student engagement and

learning increased by almost 10 percentage points In

other words not only did principals grow in their own

leadership skills when it comes to supporting coaches

and teachers but principals are even more committed



2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0

Extremely Low Low HighAverage Extremely High

Figure 6 Percentage of coaches who rated themselves on each level of a scale from extremely low to extremely high regarding their current general coaching skills related to instructional coaching

Coachesrsquo Perception of their Coaching Skills


Although the goal is more powerful use of tech-

nology to support important skill development

managing a class so that learning can happen is a

skill a non-evaluative coach can support

Through coaching a science teacher working in

a high-poverty highly

diverse middle school

transformed her peda-

gogical philosophy and

instructional design In

September as reported

by researchers students

interrupted instruction

with frequent misbehavior

resulting in a visibly frus-

trated teacher By January

though the coach and

teacher had worked to

develop a more productive

environment where

students worked inde-

pendently on learning activities in Chromebooks

while the teacher pulled students aside one by one

to provide individualized support

During this classroom visit in January the teacher

was observed using encouraging language and

was clearly developing a more positive commu-

nity-oriented environment in her classroom Yet

although students were behaviorally engaged they

were not provided opportunities to think critically

collaborate or be creative

In May it was hard for researchers to believe they

were visiting the same classroom Students entered

with a smile on their faces and shared inside jokes

with the teacher They immediately sat down and

began the warm-up activity in which students

chose to either play a game on a learning app

to review parts of a cell read science books or

enrich their knowledge of cells using other learning

software The teacher then played a video for the

whole class describing bacteria Students laughed

(appropriately) at how ldquogrossrdquo bacteria are and

were completely engaged

throughout the video

while taking notes on

their Chromebooks The

teacher elicited voluntary

responses by students

eager to share what theyrsquod

learned

The teacher then asked

students to put their heads

down and close their eyes

in order to anonymously

vote whether they wanted

to move forward by

partnering with classmates

who had not yet passed the previous quiz or

making those students stay back Every student in

the class voted to help their peers move forward

The teacher maintained anonymity so that no

student knew whether their partner had or had not

passed the quiz

Then in pairs students completed a pre-lab where

they observed ldquolittle protozoa moving aroundrdquo to

prepare for what they would see in the microscope

in the following class Students were visibly excited

about the lab Through weekly or bi-monthly

in-person meetings the coach and teacher worked

together to develop strategies that foster student

engagement and learning and provide opportuni-

ties for collaboration critical thinking and student

voice

Case Study 1 ImprovingClassroom Management

Suburban Middle School in Pennsylvania


to the potential of instructional technology coaching

to achieve school goals for student success

One teacher summarized the value of principal

support ldquoI think more than anything [our principal]

celebrates when people use new things in their

classrooms So when she comes to observe ( ) she

sees what yoursquore doing and then she does newsletters

that directly celebrate what people are doing in their

classrooms I think that makes you feel like lsquoOh then

I want to try some new things rsquo (hellip)Itrsquos a really friendly

growth environment rdquo

How is the DLP changing school culture

Increased risk-taking collaboration and a general

boost in being open to change are promising

indicators that instructional technology coaching

is a game-changer for schools and particularly for

under-resourced low-achieving schools The DLP

gives teachers support and encouragement to try new

things in their classrooms and take risks Learning

something new involves risk and a possibility of

making mistakesmdashfeeling safe enough to try some-

thing new despite the possibility of making mistakes

is a necessary ingredient for learning And if we want

students to be innovative risk-takers we need their

teachers to be just as inventive and risk-taking

As the first year of the DLP progressed more DLP

teachers agreed that teachers in their school are

encouraged to take risks By the end of the pilot year

87 percent of participating teachers reported that

risk-taking is encouraged in their school Not only

that but compared to non-DLP teachers participating

teachers were significantly more likely to believe that

risk-taking is encouraged in their school

There is an essential distinction however between

asking teachers if they are encouraged to take risks

and then asking coaches whether those risks were ac-

tually taken At the end of the pilot year coaches felt

less confident that the teachers they coached were

taking risks with 54 percent of coaches reporting that

teachers are very or extremely willing to take risks In

the coming years we will want to see the number of

coaches reporting that teachers take risks to increase

still the perception of teachers that risk-taking is

increasingly encouraged remains a strong signal that a

culture shift is underway

Risk-taking must also be modeled at the very top

if it is to become part of the culture Principals

described the DLP as encouraging them to model

risk-taking experimentation and continuous learning

As one principal said ldquoOne of the things that wersquove

Figure 7 Percentage of principals who rated themselves on each level of a scale from extremely low to extremely high regarding their current leadership skills related to instructional coaching



Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0

Principalrsquos Perception of their Leadership Skills Related to Instructional Coaching


communicated to staff regarding our focus that we

developed and brought back [from the Summer

Institute] is that we want people to be risk-takers and

to fail forward and wersquove reassured them that therersquos

not a gotcha Please donrsquot give up if somethingrsquos

challenging or doesnrsquot work the first time But to

change the mindset and culture of a campus that

hasnrsquot experienced the absence of the gotcha for not

being compliant or following whatever directive has

been presented takes some time so [my coach] and

I are working really hard to be careful about building

those trusting relationships and a risk-taking culture

So I think wersquore persistent and [our coach] has seen

some people be more open who werenrsquot before rdquo

We saw increases in collaboration among DLP

teachers as well as growth in collaboration between

DLP and non-DLP teachers Once teachers learned

something with their coach they were eager to share

their new knowledge and skills with their peers In this

way the coachrsquos reach extends beyond the group of

teachers they work with directly and DLP teachers

are also developing their own leadership skills One

teacher explained ldquo( )Whatever [our DLP coach] sug-

gests I then take to [other teachers in my department]

and Irsquom like lsquoLook she suggested this We should try

it rsquo And then they try it too rdquo

Coaches also provided supplemental support on their

campus to all teachers in the form of staff PD open

office hours newsletters and individualized support

and advice to non-coached teachers This supple-

mental support helped set the conditions to shift

school culture toward being more collaborative

In Case Study School 2 the administration focused

on ldquobuilding trusting relationships at the site with

respect to taking risksrdquo so that the staff knows

that they wonrsquot be penalized if they try something

new and it fails initially As the principal describes

it the school environment has become more

ldquoGoogle-like rdquo Teachers are beginning to

become more open to taking risks and

they are supporting one another

Previously the school had a rep-

utation of having a ldquocontentious

dividedrdquo staff and now teachers

are working together DLP teachers

are promoting coaching to their

colleagues by inviting them to visit their

classrooms when they are implementing tech-

nology and by suggesting that their colleagues

speak to the coach about challenges they are

facing Teachers are choosing as a group to

attend technology-oriented school-wide PD run

by teacher leaders within the school such as a

January session on digital badging

Even teams that have been reluctant to use

technology are beginning to embrace change

The coach explains ldquoOur eighth grade team is

our most reluctant team and two members [who

attended the PD on digital badging] took it back

to their team at the end of the day and theyrsquove

now implemented digital badges for vocabulary

which is a campus-wide focus Now the entire

eighth grade is doing vocabulary in their

home room with digital badges from a

25-minute presentation rdquo

This grade-wide approach to

collaboration is not limited to

eighth grade For instance after

one teacher working with the coach

had initial success using an escape

room activity where groups of students

employed skills of critical thinking and creativity

to ldquobreakoutrdquo the entire seventh grade team ap-

proached the coach to ask for help in creating an

interdisciplinary grade-level activity following the

same model After they successfully implemented

it the idea spread and sixth grade teachers started

to adopt it as well At the end of the year the

principal coach and DLP teachers were hopeful

the continuation of coaching will lead to a more

cohesive and collaborative campus

Case Study 2 Trust Leadsto Innovation

Suburban Middle School in Texas


What did we learn about structuring a successful coaching program

The DLP was designed based on important charac-

teristics of instructional coaching identified in the

literature review combined with prior experience

of the program team Now from the data gathered

throughout the pilot year we identified six core

attributes of an effective coaching program

Itrsquos a partnership

Over the year 100 percent of

the principals and coaches

agreed that coaching is a part-

nership Teachers also increas-

ingly reported that instructional

coaching was a partnership in

their school Teachers described joint decision-mak-

ing in their collaboration with their coach and viewed

their coach as a thought partner with whom they

collectively found creative solutions to teaching

challenges According to mentors and

coaches good coaches scaffold

ownership based on teachersrsquo

needs and pull back their

role as the teacher is ready

to take more ownership

Coaches and teachers

noted that though they are

collective owners of the change

process the teacher drives the partner-

ship and makes the final decisions

Itrsquos personalized

Just as students are better

supported when learning is

personalized PD programs are

also better when personalized

Teachers prefer coaching to

traditional PD because coaching

is relevant to the specific context of each teacherrsquos

background their classroom goals and particular

needs of the student population Coaches tailor their

pacing approach suggestions and type of classroom

support to meet each individual teacherrsquos unique

needs

ldquoIf you do a one-sized model for all the teachers

thatrsquos not going to necessarily address their strengths

or weaknesses as a teacher The one-on-one aspect

is I think the most important part that you can

address each teacher individually based on their

strengths and their areas of growth rdquo -Teacher

Itrsquos non-evaluative

Over the year the majority of

teachers believed their coach

communicated with them in

non-evaluative ways Teachers

reported feeling safe to confide

in their coach and receive

honest feedback and support

without fear that the confiden-

tiality of the coach-teacher relationship would be

broken When teachers trusted that the collaboration

was non-evaluative they worked with their coach in

an open and transparent manner This non-evaluative

support provided a framework within which teachers

felt free to experiment take risks and try new things

Teachers who reported non-evaluative coaching were

more likely to report progress in using technology in

powerful ways in their content area and

teaching approaches

ldquoWhen she would be in my

room working with me I

always felt so comfortable

I never felt judged because

sometimes it is hard to have

another teacher in your room while

yoursquore teaching but she never

made me feel like that She was

always just extra help that made

me feel more confident rdquo - DLP Teacher

Itrsquos voluntary

When teachers choose to

participate in coaching volun-

tarily they are more likely to be

invested in the process Indeed

teachers who participated in

the DLP used technology more

frequently reported spending

more time and receiving a higher degree of support

from their coach and were more likely to believe that

their coach worked with them in a non-evaluative

manner

ldquoItrsquos not compliance based itrsquos real and so people are

more likely to engage rdquo -DLP Principal

ldquoI never felt like it was her telling

me what I should do it was more we were equals just bouncing ideas off

of each otherrdquo -DLP Teacher


Itrsquos situated within the school and classroom

Teachers value having the coach

situated within the school to

support them in their classrooms

when they try something new

They appreciate the relevant

insights and perspectives that the coach can provide

Additionally the ability to provide spontaneous and

informal support throughout the school day allows for

more organic collaboration

Itrsquos sustained

The sustained consistent

support over the course of one

or more cycles allows time for

relationship building experi-

mentation and the opportunity

to tackle multiple challenges

Seventy-seven percent of participating DLP teachers

received at least 30 minutes of one-on-one coaching

per week with 43 percent of them receiving more

than an hour of coaching each week In the DLP pilot

year teachers received on average at least 19 hours

of coaching support over the course of the school

year This represents a wide range of total coaching

hours some teachers received 0-8 hours for the year

and some received 96 hours or more Coaches noted

that the intensity of support they provide varies based

on teacher need In general teachers who partici-

pated in more than one cycle received more hours of

coaching Additionally teachers whose coaching was

sustained for more than one cycle used technology in

more powerful ways and felt more confident in their

abilities to use technology for content and pedagogy

ldquoI think the beauty of the program is it can be at the

teacherrsquos pace Itrsquos not a competition If it takes us

three weeks to get there great it takes us three weeks

to get there If we get there in two minutes then we

get there in two minutes rdquo - DLP Coach

When examining instructional coaching through the

lens of the five core elements of effective PDmdashcontent

focus active learning sustained duration collective

participation and coherencemdashour data presents the

DLP coaching program as a powerful tool for improv-

ing teacher knowledge skills and practice Because

coaching is a partnership that is situated in the school

and classroom teachers frequently have multiple

points of interaction with their coach and get regular

feedback Additionally teachers actively engage in

their learning by collaboratively identifying challenges

and setting goals that are directly related to the needs

of their classroom and the specific content they teach

and they implement new strategies with their coach

What did we learn about what makes a successful coach

In addition to gaining a better understanding of the

attributes that contribute to a successful coaching

program we identified several qualities of an effective

coach

Relationship builder - Teachers

coaches and principals noted

that a successful coach needs

to establish relationships with

teachers (and students) that are

built on trust and respect

ldquoA good coach is(hellip)innovative

not only in her instructional

strategies and what she can find and bring to teach-

ers but in the way she approaches teachers or staff

members and builds relationships and finds the way

in even when the door might not be open rdquo- DLP

Principal

relationship builder

insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

ldquo[My coach] said lsquoHey if you have a question just shoot me a text if you need mersquo So Irsquoll have my phone in the drawer I open it up just text her lsquoHey Irsquom struggling with thisrsquo shersquoll come down right awayrdquo -DLP Teacher


Insider - Teachers coaches

and principals all agreed that

the ideal instructional coach

should be a former teacher with

previous experience within the

school Since teachers already

have an established relationship and trust with an

ldquoinsider coachrdquo the coach understands the specific

and unique needs of the student population and the

students themselves already know and are comfort-

able working with the coach

ldquoShe knows the kids she knows the school she knows

the culture She knows the principal very well(hellip)shersquos

not an outside observer rdquo - DLP

Teacher

Strong communicator -

Teachers valued an easy

dynamic and open channel

of communication with their

coach They described the ideal

coach as relatable approach-

able flexible accessible and supportive Reflecting

upon the year the majority of DLP teachers reported

feeling comfortable initiating and having conversa-

tions with their coach

ldquoA good coach listens really well and really tries to get

to the root of a problem rdquo- DLP Teacher

Tech believer - While it is not

necessary for coaches to already

be tech savvy they should be-

lieve in the potential impact that

powerful use of technology can

have in instruction They should

also have a growth mindset

around technology integration

ldquoI donrsquot think they have to be ( ) the number one

techy person in the school but I think they should be

someone whorsquos curious and interested in technology

and using technology for learning So I think itrsquos their

mindset ldquo - DLP Mentor

Experienced teacher - Recent

teaching experience allows

coaches to establish trust and

credibility with teachers It helps

them to be respected by their

peers and establish the norms

of collegiality for collective

ownership of the change process Coaches with

backgrounds as classroom teachers can also better

empathize with teachersrsquo job-related stresses and

constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

ldquoIn order to build the relationships you need to have street cred amongst the people that yoursquore working with And so if they donrsquot feel like yoursquove been in their shoes itrsquos not going to work rdquo - DLP Mentor


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS

The Dynamic Learning Project was launched to help

teachers use technology in more powerful ways

because closing the digital use divide is an essential

step in improving and achieving equitable educational

outcomes particularly for underserved and under-re-

sourced schools It was carefully designed based on

what research told us about effective coaching as

well as the experiences of the program team

When the DLP was introduced in the 50 pilot schools

teachers were overwhelmingly positive about the idea

of the program and were excited to participate What

is particularly compelling is that at the end of the pilot

year that level of positivity and excitement remained

very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have

liked to participate

in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital

Promise will continue to provide in-person and virtual

training as well as mentor support to participating

coaches and principals We know that school districts

are operating in a resource-strapped environment

and decisions to fund relatively new positions are

made carefully Sixteen out of 20 districts and 44 out

of the 50 original schools (88 percent) have found

a way to continue their participation in the DLP Five

of the districts are greatly expanding the program to

include 42 new schools The choice to continue and

even expand the program suggests that school district

leaders principals and teachers see genuine results

and positive impact after the pilot year

One question we must address in the second year

is the relative importance of how much time the

coach spends with each individual teacher versus

the number of teachers coached In this pilot year

teachers who participated in multiple cycles reported

more progress in their ability to use technology to

teach specific content and to improve their teaching

approaches However particularly in larger schools

when individual teachers participate in multiple

cycles it can limit the total number of teachers who

can receive coaching in a year Some teachers may

need multiple cycles to improve their practice to a

place where they can continue implementing new

approaches on their own while for others a single

eight-week cycle may suffice to elevate their teaching

practice This question of breadth versus depth is im-

portant to consider as we contemplate how the DLP

can spur real changes in school climate and teacher

behavior exactly how we define breadth and depth

may change depending on school characteristics

teacher aptitude and more

If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that

will help close the digital use divide and ultimately

increase student achievement Although measuring

improvement in student achievement and attributing

it to a coaching intervention is complicated from a

research perspective we will expand data collection

and analysis and study the feasibility in year two As

we move into the second year and collect more and

new data on the impacts of instructional technology

coaching we look to the DLP teachers to keep us

motivated as one of the teachers noted

ldquoToo often in education new programs or practices

are introduced and then are either not followed

through or are forgotten by the following school

year This has been a wildly rewarding opportunity and

I hope we are able to continue it in the future rdquo

gt75

544

4250out of the

districts

districtsare expandingthe program

new schoolsoriginal schools

+

will continue their participation in DLP


Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Digital Promise is leading the Dynamic Learning Project and conducting re-

search on effective coaching and leadership practices This project would not

be possible without the generous support of Google Google has provided a

grant and countless volunteer hours Digital Promise has engaged EdTechTeam

to provide expert professional development and mentoring to the participating

coaches and principals The authors would like to thank all participating schools

and particularly the four case study schools for completing surveys and allow-

ing us to visit their classrooms and interview their staff for this project We would

also like to thank Christina Luke and Lisa Jobson for their help with data analysis


References


REFERENCES

Charner I amp Medrich E (2017) Educator-Centered Instructional Coaching What the Research Says FHI 360

Darling-Hammond L (2000) Teacher quality and student achievement Education policy analysis archives 8 1

Darling-Hammond L Zielezinski M amp Goldman S (2014) Using technology to support at-risk studentsrsquo learn-

ing Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education Online httpsedpolicy stanford edupublications

pubs1241

Desimone L M amp Pak K (2017) Instructional coaching as high-quality professional development Theory Into

Practice 56(1) 3-12

Ehsanipour T amp Zaccarelli F G (2017) Exploring Coaching for Powerful Technology Use in Education Center

to Support Excellence in Teaching Stanford University Online httpsdigitalpromise orgwp-contentup-

loads201707Dynamic-Learning-Project-Paper-Final pdf

Education Superhighway (2016) The Connectivity Gap Retrieved July 20 2018 from httpswww education-

superhighway orgchallenge

Harris D N amp Sass T R (2011) Teacher training teacher quality and student achievement Journal of public

economics 95(7-8) 798-812

Kraft M A Blazar D amp Hogan D (2018) The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement A

meta-analysis of the causal evidence Review of Educational Research 0034654318759268

Leithwood K Seashore L Wahlstrom K amp Anderson S (2010) Investigating the links to improved student

learning Center for Applied Research and Educational ImprovementUniversity of Minnesota and Ontario

Institute for Studies in Education at The University of Toronto 42 1-333

Matsumura L C Sartoris M Bickel D D amp Garnier H E (2009) Leadership for literacy coaching The princi-

palrsquos role in launching a new coaching program Educational Administration Quarterly 45(5) 655-693

Ravitz J (2014) A survey for measuring 21st century teaching and learning West Virginia 21st Century

Teaching and Learning Survey [WVDE-CIS-28] DOI 10 13140RG 2 1 2246 6647 Retrieved from tinyurl

com21cs-survey-meas

Reich J amp Ito M (2017) From good intentions to real outcomes Equity by design in learning technologies

Irvine CA Digital Media and Learning Research Hub

US Department of Education (2017) Reimagining the role of technology in education 2017 National Education

Technology Plan update

Wei R C Darling-Hammond L amp Adamson F (2010) Professional development in the United States Trends

and challenges (Vol 28) Dallas TX National Staff Development Council

Yoon K S Duncan T Lee S W Y Scarloss B amp Shapley K L (2007) Reviewing the Evidence on How

Teacher Professional Development Affects Student Achievement Issues amp Answers REL 2007-No 033 Regional

Educational Laboratory Southwest (NJ1)


Methodological and Analysis Details

To investigate our research questions we used a

mixed methods design in which qualitative and quan-

titative data was collected throughout the year and

analyzed separately and then results were compared

and interpreted

Data Collection

Quantitative Data Collection

The quantitative data collection included a one-group

pretest-posttest design consisting of one pre-survey

(at the beginning of the year) and one post-survey (at

the end of the year) These surveys were administered

to different groups of participants across all 50

participating schoolsmdashprincipals coaches teachers

students and district leadsmdashas well as non-participant

teachers Most of the survey questions were Likert

scales providing five response options Surveys also

included some open-ended questions allowing

participants to provide more in-depth answers

In addition to demographic questions coach and

principal surveys asked questions about their school

climate and their opinions about instructional coach-

ing the role of each participant their skills related to

instructional coaching and the impact of instructional

technology coaching on student engagement and

learning Nearly all coaches (n=47) and principals

(n=45) completed both pre- and post-surveys (Table

1) We also surveyed district leads to understand the

alignment of the DLP with their district goals and the

possibility of sustaining and scaling the DLP in each

district 18 of the 20 districts responded to the survey

Teacher surveys asked participating teachers to

agree or disagree with statements on teacher use of

technology principal-coach-teacher partnership

coach-teacher collaboration school culture job

satisfaction and student engagement and learning

Teacher surveys also included questions on demo-

graphics amount of participation time in the DLP and

amount of support received from the coach Eleven

hundred (1100) DLP teachers completed the pre-sur-

vey and 855 DLP teachers completed the post-survey

Two hundred ninety-four teachers completed both

surveys

At the end of the year we also surveyed teachers in

the DLP schools who did not participate (Non-DLP

teachers) in the program (n=430) in order to compare

their use of technology with that of DLP teachers

Student perspective was also solicited twice per year

Pre- and post-surveys were administered to students

of four case study teachers (please see ldquoQualitative

Data Collectionrdquo section) These surveys were de-

signed to measure the ultimate impact of coaching on

student engagement and use of technology

Table 1 Number of teachers principals coaches and students who completed surveys

Appendix 1

Survey DLP Teachers Non-DLP Teachers

Coaches Principals Case study students

Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105

Matched pre and post surveys

294 NA 47 45 798


Qualitative Data Collection

We selected four volunteer case study schools to

participate in more extensive data collection In

selecting the four schools we identified schools that

represented the diversity of the project in geographic

region socioeconomic status access to technology

and school size

At each case study school we conducted three site

visits throughout the year (at the beginning in the

middle and at the end of the school year) During

each visit in each school we interviewed principals

coaches and three to seven volunteer teachers who

received coaching throughout the entirety of the

school year Case study teachers taught a variety of

subjects at different grade levels The interviews were

semi-structured around the following main thematic

areas implementation of coaching in schools re-

spondentrsquos role in instructional technology coaching

respondentrsquos understanding of the coach-teach-

er-principal partnership and impact of coaching

In addition to interviews we also observed case

study teachers during one class period of instruction

teaching on their own (in visits one and three) and

while working with their coach (in visit two) During

observations we took descriptive notes on how

teachers used technology

We also interviewed four of the program mentors

Conducted at the end of the school year these

semi-structured interviews asked mentors to reflect

on changes in technology use over time and qualities

of successful instructional coaching

Data Analysis

Quantitative Data Analysis

Quantitative data analysis included both descriptive

and inferential analysis (using SPSS) Descriptive

analysis was run on all the variables to understand

data trends at the beginning and at the end of the

year Additional analysis was run to analyze changes

between the beginning of the year and the end of

the year in 1) DLP teachersrsquo perception of the power

of instructional technology coaching in fostering

student learning andor engagement 2) DLP teachersrsquo

agreement on the openness of school culture in terms

of risk-taking 3) coachesrsquo coaching skills and 4)

principalsrsquo leadership skills in instructional technology

coaching Table 2 presents the results of this analysis

Table 2 - Paired samples t-test results (DLP participants - beginning of year versus end of year)

Variable Mean - beginning of year

Mean - end of year Statistical Significance

Teacher perception about coaching and student engagement

M = 4 2 SD = 88 M = 4 4 SD = 69 p lt 001 Wilcoxon Signed-

ranks test Z=3 672 r= 2

Teacher perception about coaching and student learning


ranks test Z = 3 799 r = 2

DLP teacher agreement on the openness of school culture in terms of risk-taking



Coaches coaching skills




Independent samples t-tests were performed to

analyze differences between DLP teachers and

non-DLP teachers at the end of the year in terms of

1) their frequency of use of technology during the

school year 2) their quality of use of technology 3)

their job satisfaction and 4) their perception of school

culture in terms of collaboration and risk taking We

used several questions to measure teacher quality of

use of technology While it made sense to ask some of

the questions for both DLP and non-DLP teachers we

couldnrsquot ask others (e g the six indicators of Powerful

Use of Technology) from non-DLP teachers because

responding to those questions required training and

participation in the DLP For those questions our anal-

ysis was limited to a descriptive level Table 3 presents

the results of this analysis

Table 3 - Independent samples t-tests (DLP versus Non DLP)

Variable DLP teachers - mean standard deviation

Non-DLP teachers - mean standard deviation

Statistical Significance

Difference in frequency of use of technology

M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203

Difference in general progress in use of technology in teaching practice

M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207

Difference in use of technology for con-tent DLP teachers vs non-DLP teachers

M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208

Principals leadership skills in coaching


ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7

Student use of technology for collaboration

M = 3 3 SD = 1 31 M = 3 4 SD = 1 24 p lt 05 paired sample t-test

r = 0 168

Student use of technology for critical thinking


r = 0 142

Student use of technology for communication

M = 2 9 SD = 1 50 M = 3 0 SD = 1 37 p lt 001 paired sample

t-test r = 0 218

Student use of technology for agency


t-test r = 0 163


At the end we conducted correlation analysis between

our variables measuring quality of teacher technology

use (dependent variables) and our demographic and

participation variables Table 4 presents the results of

this analysis

Difference in use of technology for peda-gogy DLP teachers vs non-DLP teachers

M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3

Teacher agreement on the openness of school culture in terms of risk-taking

M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4


Table 4 - Correlations

Variable 1 Variable 2 Correlation

Level of support received from

the coach

General satisfaction of being a

teacher at their school

Positively correlated Spearmanrsquos

r = 2 p lt 001

Teacher agreement that coach

communicated in a non-

evaluative way

General progress in using

technology to teach specific

content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way


technology to improve teaching

approaches


r = 3 p lt 000

Teacher willingness to participate

in the DLP

Increase in frequency of use of

technology in classroom


r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP

Amount of time working with the

coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000

Number of cycles the teacher

participated in

Teacher ability to actively engage

students with

bull selecting relevant technology

tools and resources for

learning

bull using technology to increase

collaboration with one another


communication with one

another

bull using technology as a tool for

creativity and innovation skills


critical thinking skills

bull using technology to develop

their agency


r = 2 p lt 000


When reading the report it is important to keep in

mind the limitations of the data sources which rely

on the self-reports of stakeholders who voluntarily

participated We had no independent means of

verifying the accuracy of their responses which limits

generalizability Further all schools who participated

in the study received coaching therefore we could

not examine differences between participating school

and non-participating schools and were limited to ex-

amining change over time In addition the number of

matched teacher survey responses for the pre-survey

and post-survey (n = 294) is relatively small compared

to the number of responses for the pre-survey (n

=1110) or the post-survey (n = 855) The main reason

for the limited number of linked pre-post responses

is that the population of teachers asked to complete

the pre-survey was different from the population

of teachers asked to complete the post survey the

pre-survey was administered to teachers who at the

beginning of the year had thought they might work

with their coach at some point during the school

year (instead of all teachers) and the post-survey was

completed by teachers who received coaching at

some point during the year

Throughout this report we used a holistic approach

when deciding what information to present We

focused on presenting meaningful evidence of

impact (over time among DLP teachers) or difference

(between DLP and non-DLP teachers) Where we

were able to perform tests of statistical significance

we used those results to guide our decisions about

what material to present In some cases we describe

differences that were not statistically significant but

were large in magnitude

Qualitative Data Analysis

After each case study visit we conducted a cross-sec-

tional analysis of interview data We analyzed

interview transcripts using Dedoose a cross-platform

software package for analyzing qualitative data that

allows researchers to code text record memos and

analyze emergent themes Preliminary codes falling

into three categories of implementation outcomes

and impacts were drawn deductively from our theory

of change and then adapted and extended after each

visit as new themes emerged in the data Our final

complex coding scheme included 74 codes

During the exploratory coding process researchers

read and re-read interview transcripts selecting

excerpts of text that were consistent with the themes

identified in the coding scheme Multiple coding

passes were conducted to filter and focus features

of the data relevant to the research questions

Researchers met during the coding process to com-

pare their application of the coding scheme conduct

reliability checks and develop the coding scheme

Following at least two coding passes researchers

used coded excerpts to create cross-sectional

thematic profiles for each school that compared and

synthesized coach principal and teacher perspectives

within each school during each visit (Table 5) Next

longitudinal thematic profiles were created for each

school describing changes and continuities between

the participant perspectives in the first second and

third visits Finally we developed profiles for each

theme that compared the trajectory of each school

over time and compared participant perspectives

across schools Mentor interviews were coded using

the same coding scheme and then thematic profiles

were created representing the mentor perspective

Researchers met to discuss interpretations in each

profile and produced memos on connections be-

tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000


Implementation Mentor support to coaches and principals

Principal support to coaches and teachers

Coach support to teachers

Sustainability

Outcomes Coachesrsquo instructional coaching skills

Principal leadership skills related to instructional coaching

Teacher job satisfaction

Impacts Impact of the DLP on teachers

Impact of the DLP on students

Impact of the DLP on school culture

Impact of the DLP on parentscommunity

Table 5 Themes for cross-sectional school profiles


Book study Over the course of the first eight weeks of the school year (Cycle 1)

coaches participated in a book study and completed weekly reflections

The focus of the book study was Magiera J (2017) Courageous edven-

tures Navigating obstacles to discover classroom innovation Thousand

Oaks CA Corwin a SAGE Publishing Company

DLP Coach Training Series Throughout the course of the year coaches participated in one or two

YouTube live sessions each month Sessions that were led by mentors

and supplemented by companion resources covered the following

topics

1 Coaching Conversation Toolkit Communication etiquette the art of

asking questions and the 11 meeting cycle

2 Real-time Coaching Modeling observations and real-time feedback

3 Shifting to Adult Learning Coaching the whole person

4 Building an Innovative School Culture

5 Digital Classroom Management Setting up schools and classrooms

up for digital success

6 Powerful Reflection Using reflectionmdashnot evaluationmdashto learn and

grow

7 Teaching Teachers Designing and delivering effective professional

learning

8 Creating Custom Resources for Teachers

9 Building and Cultivating my PLN

Coach newsletters Sent weekly These included a checklist of program expectations news

and updates a tech tip of the week and a DLPShoutout of the week

highlighting the efforts of an individual coach

Appendix 2

Materials provided to coaches


Coaching tools A ldquoChallenge Menurdquo with suggested challenge categories and associ-

ated strategies was provided to coaches

During the first three cycles coaches maintained logs of their

classroom visits meetings and progress of coached teachers in the

following formats

bull Teacher Tracker (Google sheet)

Coaches maintained a list of coached teachers which included

demographic information

bull Teacher Innovation Plan (Google doc)

Coaches documented each teacherrsquos selected challenge tracked

progress from 11 meetings Coaches and recorded end of cycle

reflections

bull Teacher Observation Forms (Google form)

Coaches maintained records of their in-classroom support

Following Winter Institute six observation tools were added

During the fourth cycle an online coaching dashboard started provid-

ing coaches with streamlined access to the logs


CONTENTS

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 7

About the Dynamic Learning Project 11

Findings 15

Conclusions 26

Acknowledgements 28

References 30


Executive Summary












EXECUTIVE SUMMARY








Introduction



INTRODUCTION

















two important facts

































and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







Executive Summary












EXECUTIVE SUMMARY








Introduction



INTRODUCTION

















two important facts

































and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections

















EXECUTIVE SUMMARY








Introduction



INTRODUCTION

















two important facts

































and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections












Introduction



INTRODUCTION

















two important facts

































and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections








INTRODUCTION

















two important facts

































and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections









and meaningful ways






we get there











2014)



































the classroom






matters



Pak 2017)











practice







CONTENTFOCUS

ACTIVELEARNING

SUSTAINED DURATION


COHERENCE

5Key Areas

















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections





















ogy to











variety of media




with technology














Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections










Student Engagement


Technology Skills

Dierentiation

PlanningPreparation

Assessment

Professional Growth

ClassroomManagement

592

556

487

419

385

333

310

228

















knowledge









































































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections















































































82+
































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections




































Students

low-income100

White83

Black8




Case Study 1


Students

low-income79

Latino83

White10

Black5




Case Study 2


Students

low-income82

Black51

White45




Case Study 3


Students

low-income93

White52

Latino31

Black9




Case Study 4


Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







Findings


FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







FINDINGS





























































76

vs

86

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

vs60

46

DLPTeachers

Non-DLPTeachers

892

854

834816

769759





The Previous Year

















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections



















































(Figures 4 and 5)










it with gusto rdquo

Technology skills

DLP Teachers



493543

467

597

445

564

Non-DLP Teachers







898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections










898

818918

821




Coaches Principals


851 778

957 872







































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections











































anything rdquo





















2121

362

85

553

681

64

213

0 0
























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections


























environment where






























learned






to move forward by







passed the quiz










voice

























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections




























































Extremely Low Low

2622

378

HighAverage

44

256

556

718

Extremely High

0 0 0
































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections




































































































































needs

























teaching approaches











Itrsquos voluntary











manner

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections

















Itrsquos sustained














































coach













Principal


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z

















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections





















Teacher




































constraints


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z



insider

strong communicator

tech believer

experienced teacher

x+y=z


Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







Conclusions


CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







CONCLUSIONS














very high

Moreover more

than half of non-

DLP teachers said

they would have


in the DLP

In year two of the

DLP program dis-

tricts must procure

their own funding

for the coach

position Digital



































If there is one

takeaway from the

pilot year of the

Dynamic Learning

Project it is that

staff teachers

principals and

coaches believe

instructional tech-

nology coaching

provides an en-

gaging impactful

PD experience that
















gt75

544

4250out of the

districts



+



Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







Acknowledgements


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS











References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







References


REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections







REFERENCES





pubs1241


Practice 56(1) 3-12







economics 95(7-8) 798-812










com21cs-survey-meas
















and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections












and interpreted

Data Collection




































surveys












Appendix 1



Pre-survey 1100 NA 50 50 1668

Post-survey 855 430 47 45 1105


294 NA 47 45 798








and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections













and school size

























Data Analysis




















































M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections




























M = 4 29 SD = 1 11 M = 4 03 SD = 90 p lt 001 t = 5 1 d =

1203


M = 3 65 SD = 1 11 M = 3 39 SD = 1 05 p lt 001 t = 3 8 d =

1207


M = 3 61 SD = 1 10 M = 3 36 SD = 1 06 p lt 001 t = 3 7 d =

1208



ranks test Z = 4 153 r = 0 7



r = 0 168



r = 0 142



t-test r = 0 218



t-test r = 0 163






this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections











this analysis


M = 3 54 SD = 1 13 M = 3 31 SD = 1 03 p lt 001 t = 3 5 d =

834 3


M = 4 2 SD = 0 93 M = 4 02 SD = 89 p lt 05 t = 3 1 d =

835 4





the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections










the coach




r = 2 p lt 001



evaluative way



content knowledge


r = 4 p lt 000



evaluative way



approaches


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP




r = 2 p lt 000


in the DLP


coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP


the coach


r = 3 p lt 000


in the DLP



evaluative way


r = 3 p lt 000


participated in


students with



learning





another






their agency


r = 2 p lt 000









































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections














































































tween themes


participated in



content knowledge


r= 3 p lt 000


participated in



approaches


r= 3 p lt 000





Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections










Sustainability


















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections















topics









grow


learning






Appendix 2







following formats







reflections











following formats







reflections






fostering powerful use of technology through instructional … · 2018-08-09 · teachers are using...

Documents